Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Truth is a complete defense to a defamation charge, but a defendant does not have to prove the literal truth of a defamatory statement to prevail. An effective defense can rely on the substantial truth doctrine. Under the substantial truth doctrine, a defamatory statement is First Amendment-protected if it is factually similar to the pleaded truth, and does not differ from the truth by more than immaterial details. This article presents and analyzes the theory, application, and constitutional foundations of the substantial truth doctrine. It concludes that the doctrine promotes the values of the First Amendment by reducing the risk of self-censorship, yet preserves defamation law's reputational protection and compensatory function.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Glen Hoffmann (2007). A Dilemma for the Weak Deflationist About Truth. Sorites 18:129-137.
Jan A. Aertsen (1992). Truth as Transcendental in Thomas Aquinas. Topoi 11 (2):159-171.
Noriaki Iwasa (2011). That Truth Exists is More Logical. Think 10 (27):109-112.
Claire Horisk (2007). The Expressive Role of Truth in Truth-Conditional Semantics. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):535–557.
Aladdin Mahmūd Yaqūb (1993). The Liar Speaks the Truth: A Defense of the Revision Theory of Truth. Oxford University Press.
Frederick F. Schmitt (ed.) (2003). Theories of Truth. Blackwell Pub..
Simon Blackburn & Keith Simmons (eds.) (1999). Truth. Oxford University Press.
Panu Raatikainen (2008). On Rules of Inference and the Meanings of Logical Constants. Analysis 68 (300):282-287.
Added to index2009-05-17
Total downloads6 ( #155,400 of 757,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?